Rating: 
Summary: Correction of "A dissappointment" [sic]
Review: Want to point out a misconception embedded in the review written below. The message of this classic is exactly what the reviewer thinks it is NOT saying. Huxley's point is that the way of life of the "Brave New World" doesn't work, doesn't accord with human dignity or a general ethic that values individuality, doesn't work with a natural human life (as represented by the Native American hero). In the book, he wrestles with how to solve that problem without consigning people to poverty ridden, miserable existences. The worry that society was heedlessly and without forethought turning into the sort of society portrayed was exactly Huxley's worry. This book, used properly is a valuable aid to teaching a number of subjects. As a medical ethicist, I often use it to get college students to see what the moral dilemmas surrounding reproductive and genetic technologies are. I've also seen it used in courses about technology and society. As a piece of writing, it should be clear that this can be used more generally as an example of clear prose, a critique of socialism/totalitarianism/communism, or a political commentary on what a good human life is and ought to be. I'm very concerned that this error is being made in the course of an honors English class (regardless of whether the error was made by student, teacher, or both). The student who wrote the review should find out somehow - through a teacher or other resource - what the book is actually about. It's an enjoyable and thought-provoking read.
Rating: 
Summary: The worst book I've read in at least two years
Review: What puzzles me is why this book is so frequently quoted, like it is some kind of literary pearl. After having read it, I gotta say it feels like if Ayn Rand decided to re-make Candide. Which is to say it definitely isn't great literature. This plotless, uneven book is populated by drowning in bathos stick-figure characters that take their turns at barking out the author's rant. Maybe if it had been an essay, it would have been less unbearable, but as a novel the book is pathetic. As far as Huxley's being prophetic, well, first that adds nothing to its literary value, second, this is trivial, and lastly, Hillaire Belloc with his "Servile State" was ahead of Huxley by about twenty years (and he, appropriately made it an essay, not a half-a##ed novel brimming over with witticisms like "fordship" instead of "lordship". Phooey.) Instead, I recommend to read Belloc's "Servile State" first, and then you will probably not want to bother with "Brave New World." The book's junk.
Rating:
Summary: One of my favorite books
Review: I first read this book in my high school junior English class and couldn't put it down. I just had to keep reading to find out what happened. I have read it two times since then and finally broke down and bought it. The book is about a controlled society hundreds of years in the future and one man, Bernard, who feels something is missing from his life. The first chapter is a bit confusing in parts but it picks up after that. I don't know how anyone could find this book boring, I found it fascinating.
Rating: 
Summary: Mediocre
Review: Although the book has some interesting ideas in it (like bokanovskification process and conditioning) after the first few chapters it becomes a repetition of the beginning chapters. Some reviewers think it wrong, even foolish to compare it with 1984 but since they are in the same genre (they are both anti-utopias), we can make a comparison between them. And when I do that, I find Brave New World weak and shallow. When I first read 1984 a few years ago, it arrested me so much that when I finished reading in the middle of a night I felt a chill. It affected me so much. But at the end of Brave New World I said "Is this the end?" Also I read Huxley's "Island" 5 or 6 years ago and I simply hated it. I don't understand his obsession with drugs. In Island, there was "Moksha medicine" which the author approves and in Brave New World there is "Soma" which I am not sure if he approves or not. Also the book doesn't give us an insight into the whole structure of the society, it mostly dwells on matters like sex and the discouragement of individuality. But I still recommend the book as an anti-utopia. Lovers of science fiction should also read "1984" and "A Canticle For Leibowitz".
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful Read
Review: I cannot understand why someone would label this book boring. I found the first chapter (about 15 pages) a bit slow but after that it picked up quickly. Don't be fooled by the "this book sucks, it's sooooo boring" reviews. The book is easy to read (the writing is a bit flawed but easy to understand) and presents a thought provoking idea about our society.
Rating:
Summary: A DISSAPOINTMENT
Review: DEAR READERS, I am writing this review to save you a waste of time, money, and paper. "The Brave New World" was given to my honors english class to read. Being a book lover I dove into the book reading the first 3 chapters before the day was out. It was then I found what a perverted, warped mind Aldous Huxley had. The book is about a man named Bernard Marx. Benard lives in a society where almost everyone is genetically engineered in a laboratory. As children they are manipulated to become one of the four social classes: Alphas, Betas, Deltas, and Epsilons. As adults, people in this society take drugs daily, and are encouraged to have intercourse with many diffrn't people, and prejudice among classes is common. In short this book is about people who's average lifestyle contains all of the wrongs commited today. This book was extremly dissapointing , and I can only hope this review will help encourage teachers around the world to NOT make us students read this book. thankyou.
Rating: 
Summary: Brave New World Revisited
Review: Having first read Brave New World while in highschool, I was curious to discover what my reaction to it might be twenty years later. Having read it a second time, I have even more respect for the work and marvel at the predictions that Huxley made. While he certainly was poking fun at society with most of his predictions, the more fearful ones certainly leave one somewhat unsettled. One must ask how close we have come to his Utopian society in our modern age. The intrusions of the press as it strives to give us the real story might be the most frightening parallel between the book and our society. For all the moments when the book scares us, makes us laugh or forces us to ponder our fate, it is a real masterpiece. Even more so when one considers it was written seventy years ago. Many thanks to my highschool English teacher who assigned it to me twenty years ago. Here's hoping today's highschools will still allow such a book to be available to today's students.
Rating:
Summary: Take a look around
Review: Read this book if you want to be inspired to think about where we are now, and where we are going. You'll be surprised at many of the things in this classic!
Rating:
Summary: Scarier every year....
Review: Control of "negative" emotions through drugs and other distractions. "Positive" thinking in hypomanic denial of tragedy. Promiscuity without love, warmth without soul, slogans without meaning--and now, genetic engineering bought, sold, and patented. Huxley would have recognized the Borg of the Star Trek universe, and shuddered. See why. But hey, it's all good, right? Good to go? You go, girl. Look on the bright side. Everybody's happy nowadays.
Rating:
Summary: How beastly the mankind is. O Silly New World!
Review: Contrary to popular prejudices, this book is not about a future totalitarian world made possible by genetic manipulation. A possibility of cutting & pasting genetic sequences was not known to Huxley. (The idea of DNA as we know it occurred to Watson in 1953.) In fact, if you read the book, you will find that making of components of this brave new world is mainly through hypnophaedia (a kind of brainwashing) and use of drug. So, is our world in any way similar to the one Huxley describes? Not quite. I'd say it merely reflects the gloomy outlook the author had in the interval of two World Wars. Is the book against science? Not really. In fact, the Controller (in his Fordship) is well aware of the subversive nature of science. A totalitarian society has to control science, he says. If any one's going to argue that this book is for anti-science, he might have to rephrase: it is about controlled use of science. Overall, like Orwell's 1984, this book is about totalitarian society, where a person's free will is simple luxury. Wait, does "free will" exists? Consult Skinner's Walden Two.
|
